Detecting Delirium: A Systematic Review of Identification Instruments for Non-ICU Settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background/objectives
Delirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research.Design
We conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments.Measurements
Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.Results
Of 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.Conclusion
Four commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.
SUBMITTER: Helfand BKI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7902461 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective Early identification of delirium, which often occurs in older patients, can effectively reduce adverse prognoses. One way to increase the detection rate of delirium is to use an effective ultrabrief instrument for higher-frequency screening. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrabrief screening tools for delirium. Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 1974, to November 31, 2022. We assessed the measurement properties of screening instruments using the consensus-based standards for selecting health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist and evaluated the risk bias of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The diagnostic test accuracy of instruments for delirium was reported using sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). Result Of the 4,914 items identified, 26 met the eligibility criteria, resulting in 5 different delirium identification tools. The overall study quality assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool was moderate to good. Of the five screening tools, two instruments had sensitivity ≥80% and specificities ≥80%: 4AT and UB-2. The most comprehensive is the 4AT scale, which has a sensitivity of 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.68, 0.88] and a specificity of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.83, 0.93) and contains 4 items. UB-2 has a sensitivity of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.96) and a specificity of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.56, 0.70). Conclusion UB-2 and MOTYB had excellent sensitivity for delirium screening at an early stage. In terms of sensitivity and intentionality, the 4AT is the best recommended scale.
| S-EPMC10214704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common clinical syndrome defined as alterations in attention with an additional disturbance in cognition or perception, which develop over a short period of time and tend to fluctuate during the course of the episode. Delirium is commonly treated in hospitals or community settings and is often associated with multiple adverse outcomes such as increased cost, morbidity, and even mortality. The first-line intervention involves a multicomponent non-pharmacological approach that includes ensuring effective communication and reorientation in addition to providing reassurance or a suitable care environment. There are currently no drugs approved specifically for the treatment of delirium. Clinically, however, various medications are employed to provide symptomatic relief, such as antipsychotic medications and cholinesterase inhibitors, among others.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors for treating people with established delirium in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting.Search methodsWe searched ALOIS, which is the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 26 October 2017. We also cross-checked the reference lists of included studies to identify any potentially eligible trials.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, reported in English or Chinese, which compared cholinesterase inhibitors to placebo or other drugs intended to treat people with established delirium in a non-ICU setting.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were duration of delirium, severity of delirium, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were use of rescue medications, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, institutionalisation, mortality, cost of intervention, leaving the study early, and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate a 'Summary of findings' table.Main resultsWe included one study involving 15 participants from the UK. The included participants were diagnosed with delirium based on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria. Eight males and seven females were included, with a mean age of 82.5 years. Seven of the 15 participants had comorbid dementia at baseline. The risk of bias was low in all domains.The study compared rivastigmine with placebo. We did not find any clear differences between the two groups in terms of duration of delirium (MD -3.6, 95% CI -15.6 to 8.4), adverse events (nausea, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.29), use of rescue medications (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1), mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.56), and leaving the study early (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.07 to 11.54). Evidence was not available regarding the severity of delirium, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, cost of intervention, or other predefined secondary outcomes.The quality of evidence is low due to the very small sample size.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings. No clear benefits or harms associated with cholinesterase inhibitors were observed when compared with placebo due to the lack of data. More trials are required.
| S-EPMC6513030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSummarize performance and development of ICU delirium-prediction models published within the past 5 years.Data sourcesSystematic electronic searches were conducted in April 2019 using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify peer-reviewed studies.Study selectionEligible studies were published in English during the past 5 years that specifically addressed the development, validation, or recalibration of delirium-prediction models in adult ICU populations.Data extractionScreened citations were extracted independently by three investigators with a 42% overlap to verify consistency using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies.Data synthesisEighteen studies featuring 23 distinct prediction models were included. Model performance varied greatly, as assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.62-0.94), specificity (0.50-0.97), and sensitivity (0.45-0.96). Most models used data collected from a single time point or window to predict the occurrence of delirium at any point during hospital or ICU admission, and lacked mechanisms for providing pragmatic, actionable predictions to clinicians.ConclusionsAlthough most ICU delirium-prediction models have relatively good performance, they have limited applicability to clinical practice. Most models were static, making predictions based on data collected at a single time-point, failing to account for fluctuating conditions during ICU admission. Further research is needed to create clinically relevant dynamic delirium-prediction models that can adapt to changes in individual patient physiology over time and deliver actionable predictions to clinicians.
| S-EPMC7746201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMeasurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition.ObjectivesTo present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments.Evidence reviewThis systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus.FindingsOf 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.Conclusions and relevanceThe 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.
| S-EPMC6382582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings.MethodThe following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument.ResultsFifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability.ConclusionInvestigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348.
| S-EPMC7433178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults.ObjectivesIn this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).Data sources and methodsFrom inception to October 2022, 12 electronic databases were searched. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies of critically ill adults with delirium that compared the effects of olanzapine and other interventions, including routine care (no intervention), nonpharmaceutical interventions and pharmaceutical interventions. The main outcome measures were the (a) relief of delirium symptoms and (b) a decrease in delirium duration. Secondary outcomes were ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events, cognitive function, sleep quality, quality of life, mechanical ventilation time, endotracheal intubation rate and delirium recurrence rate. We applied a random effects model.ResultsData from 10 studies (four RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies) involving 7076 patients (2459 in the olanzapine group and 4617 in the control group) were included. Olanzapine did not effectively relieve delirium symptoms (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.83, 2.28], p = 0.21), nor did it shorten the duration of delirium [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.09], p = 0.97] when compared with other interventions. Pooled data from three studies showed that the use of olanzapine reduced the incidence of hypotension (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.20, 0.95], p = 0.04) compared with other pharmaceuticals. There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including ICU or hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, extrapyramidal reactions, QTc interval prolongation, or overall incidence of other adverse reactions. The number of included studies was not sufficient for performing a comparison between olanzapine and no intervention.ConclusionCompared with other interventions, olanzapine has no advantage in alleviating delirium symptoms and shortening delirium duration in critically ill adults. However, there is some evidence that the rate of hypotension was lower in patients who received olanzapine than in those who received other pharmaceutical interventions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the length of ICU or hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and other adverse reactions. This study provides reference data for delirium research and clinical drug intervention strategies in critically ill adults.RegistrationProspective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).
| S-EPMC9944192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Efforts to improve the conduct of delirium RCTs are underway, but none address issues related to statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to evaluate heterogeneity in the design and analysis of delirium outcomes and advance methodological recommendations for delirium RCTs in the ICU.MethodsRelevant databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date; the search was conducted on July 8, 2019. RCTs conducted on adult ICU patients with delirium as the primary outcome were included where trial results were available. Data on frequency and duration of delirium assessments, delirium outcome definitions, and statistical methods were independently extracted in duplicate. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020141204).ResultsAmong 65 eligible RCTs, 44 (68%) targeted the prevention of delirium. The duration of follow-up varied, with 31 (48%) RCTs having ≤7 days of follow-up, and only 24 (37%) conducting delirium assessments after ICU discharge. The incidence of delirium was the most common outcome (50 RCTs, 77%) for which 8 unique statistical methods were applied. The most common method, applied to 51 of 56 (91%) delirium incidence outcomes, was the two-sample test comparing the proportion of patients who ever experienced delirium. In the presence of censoring of patients at ICU discharge or death, this test may be misleading. The impact of censoring was also not considered in most analyses of the duration of delirium, as evaluated in 24 RCTs, with 21 (88%) delirium duration outcomes analyzed using a non-parametric test or two-sample t test. Composite outcomes (e.g., rank-based delirium- and coma-free days), used in 11 (17%) RCTs, seldom explicitly defined how ICU discharge, and death were incorporated into the definition and were analyzed using non-parametric tests (11 of 13 (85%) composite outcomes).ConclusionsTo improve delirium RCTs, outcomes should be explicitly defined. To account for censoring due to ICU discharge or death, survival analysis methods should be considered for delirium incidence and duration outcomes; non-parametric tests are recommended for rank-based delirium composite outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020141204 . Registration date: 7/3/2019.
| S-EPMC8136095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common and distressing neurocognitive condition that frequently affects patients in palliative care settings and is often underdiagnosed.AimExpanding on a 2013 review, this systematic review examines the incidence and prevalence of delirium across all palliative care settings.DesignThis systematic review and meta-analyses were prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment.Data sourcesFive electronic databases were examined for primary research studies published between 1980 and 2018. Studies on adult, non-intensive care and non-postoperative populations, either receiving or eligible to receive palliative care, underwent dual reviewer screening and data extraction. Studies using standardized delirium diagnostic criteria or valid assessment tools were included.ResultsFollowing initial screening of 2596 records, and full-text screening of 153 papers, 42 studies were included. Patient populations diagnosed with predominantly cancer (n = 34) and mixed diagnoses (n = 8) were represented. Delirium point prevalence estimates were 4%-12% in the community, 9%-57% across hospital palliative care consultative services, and 6%-74% in inpatient palliative care units. The prevalence of delirium prior to death across all palliative care settings (n = 8) was 42%-88%. Pooled point prevalence on admission to inpatient palliative care units was 35% (confidence interval = 0.29-0.40, n = 14). Only one study had an overall low risk of bias. Varying delirium screening and diagnostic practices were used.ConclusionDelirium is prevalent across all palliative care settings, with one-third of patients delirious at the time of admission to inpatient palliative care. Study heterogeneity limits meta-analyses and highlights the future need for rigorous studies.
| S-EPMC6691600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Suitable biomarkers associated with the development of delirium are still not known. Urinary proteomics has successfully been applied to identify novel biomarkers associated with various disease states, but its value has not been investigated in delirium patients. RESULTS:In a prospective explorative study hyperactive delirium patients after cardiac surgery were included for urinary proteomic analyses. Delirium patients were matched with non-delirium patients after cardiac surgery on age, gender, severity of illness score, LOS-ICU, Euro-score, C-reactive protein, renal function and aorta clamping time. Urine was collected within 24 hours after the onset of delirium. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) was applied to detect differences in the urinary proteome associated with delirium in these ICU patients. We included 10 hyperactive delirium and 10 meticulously matched non-delirium post-cardiac surgery patients. No relevant differences in the urinary excretion of proteins could be observed. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that MALDI-TOF MS of urine does not reveal a clear hyperactive delirium proteome fingerprint in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial Register number: NCT00604773.
| S-EPMC3070616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractThis is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:To assess the effectiveness of non?pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised non?intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
| S-EPMC6464007 | biostudies-literature